Leak files may be used in court

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7988523.stm

Version 0 of 1.

MPs cannot stop prosecutors in the Home Office leaks case using documents seized from Tory frontbencher Damian Green, the attorney general has warned.

The courts can rule the material admissible even if the Commons says it is covered by parliamentary privilege.

Ashford MP Mr Green and Home Office civil servant Christopher Galley were arrested in November.

The Crown Prosecution Service is currently considering whether to bring charges and if privilege applies.

Both men deny any wrongdoing.

MPs are guaranteed freedom of speech under the ancient right of parliamentary privilege, which means they cannot be sued for defamation for what they say in the chamber.

Privilege also gives MPs the right not to be arrested in the Palace of Westminster on civil matters, although they can still be arrested on criminal matters.

But the Damian Green affair has raised questions about the extent of privilege, which was developed at a time when MPs needed to assert their rights against the power of the sovereign.

'Not binding'

In a blow to Mr Green's hopes of having the case against him dropped, Attorney General Baroness Scotland has ruled that evidence gathered from his office raid would only be ruled out if judges considered that its use would "impeach or question" parliamentary proceedings.

The advice is contained in a memo lodged in the House library.

The shadow immigration minister has been calling for the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee to decide whether documents seized by police are covered by privilege.

The Conservatives have also insisted that the final word on whether material is protected "ultimately falls to this House".

But Baroness Scotland said any position taken by the Commons on the documents seized from Mr Green "would not be binding on the courts".

"Article IX (of the Bill of Rights, which covers parliamentary privilege) is statute law, and its interpretation, as with any other statute, is a matter for the courts," she said.

"It is a question of law both whether particular material constitutes proceedings in Parliament, and whether the use that particular material is being put to amounts to the impeaching or questioning of such proceedings."

She went on: "It would be unprecedented for the House itself to resolve that the material is being put to such a use - the House would not know the use to which the relevant material is to be put to without questioning the prosecuting authorities."

"It is settled that it is the role of the courts to determine any questions of law relating to parliamentary privilege... There is a risk that the principle of comity would be undermined by a purported attempt by the House to determine such questions and thus usurp the determinative role of the courts."

The attorney general could intervene in proceedings on MPs' behalf to argue that details were privileged, but the courts were not obliged to agree and had previously rejected such representations, Baroness Scotland added.

Commons Speaker Michael Martin came under heavy fire for allowing police to search an MP's office without a warrant.